Cover not available
Part of
Doing SLA Research with Implications for the Classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability
Edited by Robert M. DeKeyser and Goretti Prieto Botana
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 52] 2019
► pp. 9–30

Chapter 2
Observing language-related episodes in intact classrooms

Context matters!

| Concordia University
| Concordia University
Observations of spontaneous language related episodes (LREs) in actual classrooms capture pedagogical behaviours that may affect the characteristics of LREs. In this study of 87 twelve-year old intermediate francophone EFL students in 3 intact classes, we examined the type, frequency, and resolution of 607 LREs during 20 paired/small group communicative activities (311,000-word, 55-hour corpus). Common findings across classes were the students’ ability to resolve LREs and their focus on lexical issues. However, peer-initiated LREs and attention to grammar were greater in the class where the teacher highlighted task-useful language, provided self-access tools for addressing language needs, and promoted a culture of peer collaboration. Observational research presents methodological challenges and its design limits generalizability. However, the rich description, large data-base and high ecological validity enhance the relevance of the findings for L2 pedagogy.
Keywords: EFL, language-related episodes, LREs, classroom research, feedback, peer collaboration
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Language-related episodes
  • The study
    • Context and participants
    • Corpus
    • Analyses and findings
  • Frequency of LREs
  • Characteristics of LREs
    • Initiator
    • Language feature
    • Resolution
  • Summary of frequency and characteristics of LREs
  • Contextual factors influencing the characteristics of LREs
  • Discussion of findings
  • Classroom observation of LREs and implications/relevance for pedagogy
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.52.02col
References (46)
References
Bouffard, L. A., & Sarkar, M. (2008). Training 8-year‐old French immersion students in metalinguistic analysis: An innovation in form-focused pedagogy. Language Awareness, 17(1), 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2013). Interactional feedback in synchronous voice-based computer-mediated communication: Effect of dyad. System, 41(3), 543–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, L. & Muñoz, C. (2016). The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 100 (1), 133–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, L., & White, J. (2011). An intensive look at intensity and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 106–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Closing the gap: Intensity and proficiency. In C. Muñoz (Ed.). Intensive exposure in second language learning (pp. 45–65). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The quantity and quality of language practice in typical interactive pair/group tasks. TESL Canada Journal, 31 (Special Issue 8), 37–67.Google Scholar
Dao, P., Iwashita, N., & Gatbonton, E. (2016). Learner attention to form in task-based ACCESS interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 454–479. [URL]Google Scholar
Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernandez Dobao, A. M. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagné, N., & Parks, S. (2013). Cooperative learning tasks in a Grade 6 intensive ESL class: Role of scaffolding. Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 188–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galaczi, E. (2008). Peer-peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 89–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Baron, J., & Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 367–395.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp 180–206). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Baron, J., & Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 367–395. [URL]Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156–173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horst, M., White, J., & Bell, P. (2010). First and second language knowledge in the language classroom. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14(3), 331–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kagan, S. (1994). Kagan cooperative learning (2nd ed). San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian perspectives on second language research. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 1–32). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Lesser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6, 173–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuevo, A., Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development in learner-learner interaction. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of learning and performance (pp. 175–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 301–332). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Langauge Awareness, 19(4), 261–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Springer, S., & Collins, L. (2008). Interacting inside and outside of the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 39–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2012). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48. [URL]Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.) Sociolinguistic theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 83, 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. (pp. 99–118). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Tognini, R., Philp, J., & Oliver, R. (2010). Rehearsing, conversing, working it out: Second language use in peer interaction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49(4), 583–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 115–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Llanes, Àngels & Elsa Tragant
2024. Measuring the effects of repeated exposure to children’s graded readers. Language Teaching Research 28:5 ► pp. 1842 ff. DOI logo
SPADA, NINA & PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN
2022. In it Together: Teachers, Researchers, and Classroom SLA. The Modern Language Journal 106:3 ► pp. 635 ff. DOI logo
Calzada, Asier & María del Pilar García Mayo
2021. Child learners’ reflections about EFL grammar in a collaborative writing task: when form is not at odds with communication. Language Awareness 30:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Calzada, Asier & María del Pilar García Mayo
2021. Effects of proficiency and collaborative work on child EFL individual dictogloss writing. Language Teaching for Young Learners 3:2 ► pp. 246 ff. DOI logo
Collins, Laura & June Ruivivar
2021. Research agenda: Researching grammar teaching and learning in the second language classroom. Language Teaching 54:3 ► pp. 407 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.